RIAA Wins $220,000

theDreamer said:
Actually this is in correct, Texas can not do this. (Note: I grew up and currently live in Texas.)

This is upsetting that the RIAA is winning, but if someone is doing something illegal should they not be held accountable? I just wish the RIAA would actually go after people who are doing much worse than these small time problems.
Click to expand...


it's funny how these small time problems can be held accountable for ignorance, but the RIAA - out of pure ignorance of how new technology works - can even begin to file lawsuits the way they have.

instead of going after the little guy (who very well may not know that once they download something, they are automatically sharing that file with everyone else) but shut down the kazaa and other file sharing services like them. i always get a kick out of how even in this article, they say they use lawsuits on individuals as a last resort....that smells of so much bs it's suffocating!
 
SamuraiInBlack said:
I disagree with the outcome of this.

And to show how I disagree, I'm not purchasing CDs anymore. At least not from bands that are affiliated with RIAA labels. There's a few sites I'm sure where people can legitimately download and/or purchase music from bands that aren't on RIAA labels. Those bands will be geting my money from now on as long as that remains true of them.

Fuck this bullshit. A song doesn't cost $9,000. The day a song costs as much as a used car is the day I stop purchasing music.
Click to expand...

The song does not cost 9K each. The potential loss to the record company is. How many times do you think those 24 songs have been shared, downloaded, shared, download, ad infinitum for 4 years? She placed those songs in her Sharing Folder which is, as the name stated, for sharing. This is what the case is all about, not downloading but sharing. A parallel would be a drug seller and a drug user, and she was a seller. In the eyes of the law selling is a much worse crime than using.

I don't like RIAA but this woman was guilty as sin. She should have settled while she had the chance.
 
[RIP]Zeus;1031502563 said:
And there is no way a song can cost 9k. thats just messed up, If a song was 9k to buy. you can gaurentee no one would buy it. so why is it worth that much in court? sounds like extortion to me.
Click to expand...

He had them shared out meaning numerous people could DL, not one person could download then it disappeared...........
 
Dr.LaRd said:
it's funny how these small time problems can be held accountable for ignorance, but the RIAA - out of pure ignorance of how new technology works - can even begin to file lawsuits the way they have.

instead of going after the little guy (who very well may not know that once they download something, they are automatically sharing that file with everyone else) but shut down the kazaa and other file sharing services like them. i always get a kick out of how even in this article, they say they use lawsuits on individuals as a last resort....that smells of so much bs it's suffocating!
Click to expand...

Most of the file sharing apps and search engines are based in countries where these copyright laws can do nothing, therefor the RIAA can not go after them(even though they do indeed try).

Also, they did take down that company called Napster, you know.
 
Night Black said:
Goddamn, I am glad I live in Canada where the RIAA has no jurisdiction.

That being said, If the RIAA wanted to reduce this sort of thing, the price of CDs should go down to make it more accessible, not upwards.
Click to expand...

This was a civil case. There is no "jurisdiction." The RIAA is not a government agency and can just as easily roll up to Canada and file a suit on behalf of their benefactors in Canadian courts under canadian copyright law, but they'd probably have a bit rougher time since Canadian law isn't as draconian (yet) as here in the states.

As to this case: the woman had a poor case to begin with. This wasn't some dead person, or cancer striken toddler that was being sued. This was an active P2P user who left all the evidence against her to be found on the 'tubes. On top of that she came >this< close to purjury when she lied about replacing her hard disk. She was sharing stuff, and she got caught and sued by those who have an interest in such matters and lied trying to hide the fact.

Sucks for her. She should have paid the shake-down fee.
 
himmy said:
Most of the file sharing apps and search engines are based in countries where these copyright laws can do nothing, therefor the RIAA can not go after them(even though they do indeed try).

Also, they did take down that company called Napster, you know.
Click to expand...

that little thing that started it all? i thought that was metallica that did that :)

and what good did that do? they waited too long to go after the replacements. they started on the right path with a certain torrent site....they forced them to refuse access to american based ip's....how about continuing that trend with other "search engines" and "home pages" for p2p software? makes more sense than suing the pants off a retiree who has tech savvy grand kids....
 
ianken said:
This was a civil case. There is no "jurisdiction." The RIAA is not a government agency and can just as easily roll up to Canada and file a suit on behalf of their benefactors in Canadian courts under canadian copyright law, but they'd probably have a bit rougher time since Canadian law isn't as draconian (yet) as here in the states./quote]

i can't imagine them "easily" rolling up. do some searching to see how many people have been given the RIAA treatment....i bet you won't find much. the laws that are in place currently won't do the RIAA any justice. They just don't have any grounds in Canada for it. will it happen at some point? probably....but then there is other technology other than things as easily traceable as Kazaa. and this all comes back to the arguement that the RIAA has to change their business model, because it's now broken beyond repair. (the first of this comment was directed to you ianken, but the rest is more a rant lol)

and to the person who said she "put them in her shared folder"....that implies she did this on purpose....i don't feel bad for her, because she did it....but the thing is, by DEFAULT these things happen....and for your average american (i only use american due to their the ones to get busted) they don't realize that as soon as a download is done, it's shared....unless there is user intervention. and that need for user intervention is another area that the RIAA can have their say and try to get these programs to not share things by default. they would have a much easier time to take legal action if these programs (which - on their own are legal) didn't automatically share files.
Click to expand...
 
unfortunately if you are stupid enough to use p2p for music you pretty much deserve being sued.
 
s_s256 said:
I am glad to be living in Canada where this crap was dealt with by the government 1.5 decades ago.

The Canadian version of the RIAA and movie organisation just gets a small tax on all blank media sold. Problem solved.
Click to expand...

So do the US RIAA and MPAA. Except that making copies of DVDs is now illegal but they still collect the tax.
 
Out of curiosity, I wonder how much this trial cost the RIAA? It might have been a monetary loss for them in the end. Considering how little the defendant makes and the fact that the amount your wages can be garnished is limited, + no interest. It could be a decade or a lot more b4 they get their money. That is without taking an appeal into consideration.

I think all they made was a point. And not a very good one.
 
I don't like the outcome of this case because the RIAA won money that they really don't deserve.

I agree with the jury's decision, however. Someone asked what happened to innocent until proven guilty. You left out part of it. It's innocent until proven guilty beyond all reasonable doubt. This was beyond all reasonable doubt. She copied the songs, and the jury (and judge) was right to find her guilty of copying the songs.

Little technicalities such as the tiny possiblility that someone stole her Kazaa account and posted over a thousand songs on it that happened to be on her computer, do not stand up in court. If they did, no one would ever get convicted of anything.

Lawyers probably half, artists zero. The RIAA isn't about artists.
Click to expand...

That's why I never liked this case. Some of the money will go to lawyers, some will go to the RIAA, and some will go to music labels. None of it will go to artists.

Everyone, please stop saying this woman should have won this case. As much as I would have liked to see that happen, it would have been injustice. If the defendant is guilty, they are still guilty even if the prosecution is corrupt.
 
teenk said:
The song does not cost 9K each. The potential loss to the record company is. How many times do you think those 24 songs have been shared, downloaded, shared, download, ad infinitum for 4 years? She placed those songs in her Sharing Folder which is, as the name stated, for sharing. This is what the case is all about, not downloading but sharing. A parallel would be a drug seller and a drug user, and she was a seller. In the eyes of the law selling is a much worse crime than using.

I don't like RIAA but this woman was guilty as sin. She should have settled while she had the chance.
Click to expand...

Actually, that's a good point. This woman didn't just download files (which probably wouldn't deserve a lawsuit unless it was tens of thousands of songs); she intentionally broke copyright law by sharing the files and helping other people download them.
 
I'm interested to know what 24 songs were concentrated on and why. Sounds like they might have been focusing on some artists new release. If anyone finds out let me know, must be swweeeet

Regardless, it will do absolutely nothing to slow the trading of songs. Atleast they're aware of that much. The whole concept of RIAA vs the world is funny though :p . Everyone that accesses the internet more than occasionally has downloaded a song illegally at one time or another. I'm sure the president of the RIAA has nephews/nieces/sons etc that do it. Not to mention U.S. law isnt universal, they cant enforce this where it's not illegal.

Some other interesting quotes from other sources:

The questioning then turned to her CD-ripping habits. In her deposition, Thomas said that she ripped no more than six or seven CDs per day
Click to expand...

Once cross-examination began, Toder started asking Jacobson about things such as MAC address spoofing, cracking, P2P pollution, and multipeer contamination, intimating that one of those things could have been in play when Media Sentry detected the shared folder at the IP address in question.
Click to expand...

MediaSentry is a competitor of MediaDefender. Hehe

During his cross-examination of Geek Squad member Ryan Maki, Toder was able to use Best Buy's sales history of Toder to show that she was an avid music fan that bought a lot of music from the store, both before and after February 2005. "Best Buy's records show that she bought hundreds of CDs before February 2005, did she not?" asked Toder.
Click to expand...
 
Here's some others related to the RIAA itself from Wikipedia

The RIAA names defendants based on ISP identification of the subscriber associated with an IP address, and as such do not know any additional information about a person before they sue. This has led to them issuing subpoenas to a dead grandmother, an elderly computer novice, a woman with multiple sclerosis, and even those without any computer at all. Sometimes the RIAA continues to sue even in these cases, or seeks to discontinue without prejudice (and thereby avoid compensating the defense for legal fees).

After learning that one alleged copyright infringer has died, the RIAA offered the deceased man's family a period of sixty days to grieve the man's death before they began to depose members of his family for the suit against his estate.
Click to expand...

On December 21, 2006, the RIAA filed a lawsuit for Russian owned and operated website AllOfMP3.com in the amount of $1.65 trillion. This number was derived from multiplying 11 million songs with statutory damages of $150,000 per song. The RIAA could not obtain jurisdiction over this Russian website.
Click to expand...
 
Warning : this post may contain sarcasm

Others have said this, but for me... its not that she was found guilty and ordered to pay for what she did... And, its not that she was ordered to pay $220,000.00 for 24 songs. I cant think of any other time in court, where if someone is suing for theft or damages to property... that the court will give them much more than the actual value of the property (by much more, I mean a few thousand times its cost/value). How much money is the RIAA losing on these lawsuits, and how much is all of this costing taxpayers?

A song, one song... $0.99. Now, since the RIAA and many people, including members of this forum, insist on considering this all as "theft", stealing or larceny, then we should be consistent and view it as such. So... $0.99 x 24 = $23.76... alright, so far this makes sense. And since the RIAA doesnt directly create, sell and distribute music... they arnt actually at a loss of $23.76. Add in costs for the "investigation", costs to start the lawsuit, costs to hire lawyers to write up cookie-cutter letters... $220k asked, and $220k awarded. Uhh... What? 220k? :-/ Lets keep in mind that this person isnt exactly earning a large paycheck, how many decades of wage garninshing would it take...

And, its not that the RIAA is targeting the users of p2p service, while making statements that these lawsuits will set an example and reduce "stealing" of music. OK... Interesting theory, and it seems to be working rather well <sarcasm>. Though, their suit against limewire seems to be rather silly "The recording industry is asking for compensatory and punitive damages, such as $150,000 for every song distributed without permission."
Ehh... what notation comes after "trillion"?

The bottom line is (my opinion, of course), what the RIAA is asking for, and expecting, is about as silly as the lawsuits against McDonalds for making people fat. Of course these are two completely unrelated, and uncomparable lawsuits and situations, but they are equally complete nonsense.
 
s_s256 said:
I am glad to be living in Canada where this crap was dealt with by the government 1.5 decades ago.

The Canadian version of the RIAA and movie organisation just gets a small tax on all blank media sold. Problem solved.
Click to expand...


It wont be long before the Harper government buddies up to the CRIA. :mad:
 
Copyright law needs an overhaul,and all the politicians in the back pocket of big business need to meet up with the business end of a howitzer,ASAP.This ruling is totally fucking insane.
 
Manny Calavera said:
Copyright law needs an overhaul,and all the politicians in the back pocket of big business need to meet up with the business end of a howitzer,ASAP.This ruling is totally fucking insane.
Click to expand...


Congress all together needs to be overthrown. How often are bills passed now that are in the best interests of the people who put these politicians in office vs the number that benefit big business or are absolutely pointless? Huh?
 
Probably a good number actually benefit people, but the more controversial ones are what make headlines.

Link
Seems they are going to appeal actually.
 
$9000 per song, when you can purchase the songs for 99 cents on itunes, that speaks volumes.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top